Two suspects in Tyler Tenorio slaying...

Two suspects in Tyler Tenorio slaying appear in court

There are 41 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jun 19, 2010, titled Two suspects in Tyler Tenorio slaying appear in court. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Two suspected gang members accused of taking part in a gang fight that left a Santa Cruz High School student dead last fall made their first court appearances Friday morning, but did not enter pleas.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

“If You Sleep, You Don't Eat. ”

Since: Jul 08

Santa Cruz

#25 Jun 20, 2010
westside wrote:
Every time Jennifer rewrites this story it is different each time. The police press releases all say ilt was instigated by the sureno gang members and have from the beginning.
Indeed, the original press release states that as the boys were driving by, the BPSC members initiated contact by throwing signs and shouting territorial/anti-Westside stuff. It seems they were just sitting around waiting for anyone to challenge them.

However, the boys are the ones who made the unfortunate decision to turn the car around to go fight because they thought they'd win with their, what seemed like at the time, better numbers. Of course, they probably had little clue what they were walking into, in terms of numbers, weapons, and the overall seriousness of these gangs. I'm not playing the blame-the-victim game here, I'm just pointing out that the initial decision to entertain the confrontation on the boys' part was a case of seriously poor judgment, not uncommon among 16 year old boys if I recall my own teenage years correctly, and our culture's obsession with ultra-masculinity.

As for people wondering how the other gang members got there so fast, these guys all live/are kickin' it constantly right there on Chestnut, first of all. And second, you don't think these guys have signals amongst each other to call for help? It's not like they had to pull out their iPhones and frantically scramble for 3G coverage...all their homies were probably right down the street sellin' dope, minding their hookers, or just chillin' not really having anything to do other than be a thug-on-call.

SCPD has obviously been putting a lot of concerted effort in this case and it's nice to see it paying off in the form of the assailants being brought to justice. I can only hope that they can identify all those involved and secure lengthy convictions on top of that.
sickofit

Pacific Grove, CA

#26 Jun 20, 2010
LooseSCruz wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the original press release states that as the boys were driving by, the BPSC members initiated contact by throwing signs and shouting territorial/anti-Westside stuff. It seems they were just sitting around waiting for anyone to challenge them.
However, the boys are the ones who made the unfortunate decision to turn the car around to go fight because they thought they'd win with their, what seemed like at the time, better numbers. Of course, they probably had little clue what they were walking into, in terms of numbers, weapons, and the overall seriousness of these gangs. I'm not playing the blame-the-victim game here, I'm just pointing out that the initial decision to entertain the confrontation on the boys' part was a case of seriously poor judgment, not uncommon among 16 year old boys if I recall my own teenage years correctly, and our culture's obsession with ultra-masculinity.
As for people wondering how the other gang members got there so fast, these guys all live/are kickin' it constantly right there on Chestnut, first of all. And second, you don't think these guys have signals amongst each other to call for help? It's not like they had to pull out their iPhones and frantically scramble for 3G coverage...all their homies were probably right down the street sellin' dope, minding their hookers, or just chillin' not really having anything to do other than be a thug-on-call.
SCPD has obviously been putting a lot of concerted effort in this case and it's nice to see it paying off in the form of the assailants being brought to justice. I can only hope that they can identify all those involved and secure lengthy convictions on top of that.
Yep, and we are financing their hanging out selling dope and watching for somebody to attack! When are we going to crack down on their very presence in this city and this country. At least ICE is finally involved (no real thanks to the city council who I think would have rather had us continue to suffer like this)
CatchRelease Repeat

Santa Cruz, CA

#28 Jun 20, 2010
video video video wrote:
<quoted text>
if The John Stewart Company's video cameras at the Chestnut Street Apartments all worked, then there would have been objective evidence for the SCPD investigation and the DA prosecution. also, The John Stewart Company does not allow individual residents of its apartment complexes to secure their apartments with video cameras. if they did, someone's camera might have solved this crime for the police long ago. the same situation happened at the Mission Gardens Apartments for Carl Reimer's murder. if The John Stewart Company had allowed me to secure my apartment with a video camera as i asked permission to, the SCPD would have already solved Carl Reimer's murder. so ask the city council to force The John Stewart Company to secure their properties with working video cameras and to allow individual residents to secure their apartments with their own cameras.
what prevents you from videoing a public area?
loweroceanlocal

Longview, WA

#29 Jun 20, 2010
CatchRelease Repeat wrote:
<quoted text>
what prevents you from videoing a public area?
the rules state no recording devices.
Just Sayin

Berkeley, CA

#30 Jun 20, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the rules state no recording devices.
So who would benefit from privacy while in public??
loweroceanlocal

Longview, WA

#31 Jun 20, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So who would benefit from privacy while in public??
the e management of the complex. they are protecting themselves from lawsuits......the residents or those who represent them cannot collect evidence to sue.
sickofit

Pacific Grove, CA

#32 Jun 20, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the e management of the complex. they are protecting themselves from lawsuits......the residents or those who represent them cannot collect evidence to sue.
You are now in Washington? wow
Just Sayin

Berkeley, CA

#33 Jun 20, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the e management of the complex. they are protecting themselves from lawsuits......the residents or those who represent them cannot collect evidence to sue.
OK, I'll bite. What is the management doing that would result in lawsuits if seen in the light of day (or dark of night)?
threat of eviction

Santa Cruz, CA

#34 Jun 20, 2010
CatchRelease Repeat wrote:
<quoted text>
what prevents you from videoing a public area?
the House Rules for the Mission Gardens Apartments managed by The John Stewart Company expressly forbids video and audio recording of common areas of the apartment complex. since they consider my own porch to be a common area, i cannot not even protect my front door from break–ins. their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin refused about four polite requests to reconsider their denial of my legal right to secure my apartment with a video surveillance camera. they threatened to evict me if i used a camera. so the threat of eviction, while they allow other residents to blatantly violate the House Rules, prevents me from taking video of public areas.
objective evidence

Santa Cruz, CA

#35 Jun 20, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the e management of the complex. they are protecting themselves from lawsuits......the residents or those who represent them cannot collect evidence to sue.
You must have been a resident of a property that The John Stewart Company (JSCO) manages. You hit the nail on the head. They don't want residents to be able to collect "objective evidence" to back up complaints of criminals activity in their apartment complexes. My brother recorded solid evidence of harassment — which their JSCO attorney Nathan C. Benjamin had repeatedly demanded we supply for JSCO to investigate. So we supplied the "objective evidence", but then The John Stewart Company said we couldn't record anymore. They also didn't reprimand the harassers. The audio was so damaging that it embarrassed them to the media and the government. It proved our complaints to be valid. The SCPD, the Santa Cruz City Council, and HUD officials in San Francisco and Washington DC listened to the audio recordings of this harassment.

A management company like JSCO shouldn't be able to: 1. allow criminal activity; 2. bar you from collecting objective evidence and protecting yourself; 3. violate your civil rights such to exercise free speech, the right to protection and prosecution of violations, and witness tampering and intimidation to stop people from suing them for their illegal actions.

The John Stewart Company is trying to fix the rules so they don't have to get consequences for their illegal actions. Last I knew is that ownership of human beings — i.e. slavery — is illegal in America. JSCO seems to believe that when you rent from them that you are their property too!
criminal harassment

Santa Cruz, CA

#36 Jun 20, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll bite. What is the management doing that would result in lawsuits if seen in the light of day (or dark of night)?
Harassment by the drug abusing criminals at the Mission Gardens Apartments, managed by The John Stewart Company and where Carl Reimer was brutally gunned down by gang members. Yelling profanities and threats to harm other residents in the middle of the apartment complex parking lot. These criminals threatened the person I was with. They threatened me too. One of the crazier ones, a meth tweaker who was arrested in San Jose for meth abuse, stomped down to my sister's apartment to pick a fight. Another time this same tweaker called her obscene names and yelled she was going to beat my sister. My sister has not done one thing to this tweaker. but this meth head is obsessed with her! All this and more is allowed to happen at the Mission Gardens Apartments by The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin.

Is it any surprise — knowing The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin allowed all of this — that Carl Reimer was murdered here in cold blood?
wolves in henhouse

Santa Cruz, CA

#37 Jun 21, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the e management of the complex. they are protecting themselves from lawsuits......the residents or those who represent them cannot collect evidence to sue.
Read about what The John Stewart Company does in San Francisco at Hunter's Point to people of color. Of course these crooks don't want people videotaping their activities: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/04/07/1...
JSCO is feudal

Santa Cruz, CA

#38 Jun 21, 2010
objective evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have been a resident of a property that The John Stewart Company (JSCO) manages. You hit the nail on the head. They don't want residents to be able to collect "objective evidence" to back up complaints of criminals activity in their apartment complexes. My brother recorded solid evidence of harassment — which their JSCO attorney Nathan C. Benjamin had repeatedly demanded we supply for JSCO to investigate. So we supplied the "objective evidence", but then The John Stewart Company said we couldn't record anymore. They also didn't reprimand the harassers. The audio was so damaging that it embarrassed them to the media and the government. It proved our complaints to be valid. The SCPD, the Santa Cruz City Council, and HUD officials in San Francisco and Washington DC listened to the audio recordings of this harassment.
A management company like JSCO shouldn't be able to: 1. allow criminal activity; 2. bar you from collecting objective evidence and protecting yourself; 3. violate your civil rights such to exercise free speech, the right to protection and prosecution of violations, and witness tampering and intimidation to stop people from suing them for their illegal actions.
The John Stewart Company is trying to fix the rules so they don't have to get consequences for their illegal actions. Last I knew is that ownership of human beings — i.e. slavery — is illegal in America. JSCO seems to believe that when you rent from them that you are their property too!
The John Stewart Company (JSCO) is stuck in the Dark Ages. They haven't reached the Age of Enlightenment. They consider their tenants serfs and their JSCO supervisors feudal overlords.
loweroceanlocal

Longview, WA

#39 Jun 21, 2010
Just Sayin wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll bite. What is the management doing that would result in lawsuits if seen in the light of day (or dark of night)?
the management is failing to protect the law abiding residents of these complexes by allowing criminal activity to occur. the management of the complexes as a duty to clean up their facilities, and keep them drug and gang free.
JOHN SMITH

Santa Cruz, CA

#40 Jun 24, 2010
just a thought wrote:
Dear WOW,....Wow are you kidding me. Tyler and his friends were unarmed and didn't have ten compadres waiting in the bushes. this was an ambush..
yea right they weren't armed.... i AGREE 100% with WOW!!! go WOW!!!
above the law

Santa Cruz, CA

#41 Jun 26, 2010
loweroceanlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
the management is failing to protect the law abiding residents of these complexes by allowing criminal activity to occur. the management of the complexes as a duty to clean up their facilities, and keep them drug and gang free.
unfortunately, as shown by The John Stewart Company's Mari Tustin lying to KION news, saying that the park on Mission Gardens property was the city's responsibility, The John Stewart Company feels no duty to its tenants, neighbors or the communities it operates in. Ms. Tustin has close ties to the City of Santa Cruz; she is a planning commissioner among other roles she has served in. thus the City of Santa Cruz serves Ms. Tustin RATHER THAN US. this is the tail wagging the dog. The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin are rogue. BTW, Nathan C. Benjamin is a hypocrite. He represented two women to help them exercise their free speech rights: xhttp://articles.sfgate.com/20 02-01-30/news/17527653_1_caltr ans-spokesman-dennis-trujillo- freeway-signs-banners
u R right

Santa Cruz, CA

#42 Jun 26, 2010
above the law wrote:
<quoted text>
unfortunately, as shown by The John Stewart Company's Mari Tustin lying to KION news, saying that the park on Mission Gardens property was the city's responsibility, The John Stewart Company feels no duty to its tenants, neighbors or the communities it operates in. Ms. Tustin has close ties to the City of Santa Cruz; she is a planning commissioner among other roles she has served in. thus the City of Santa Cruz serves Ms. Tustin RATHER THAN US. this is the tail wagging the dog. The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin are rogue. BTW, Nathan C. Benjamin is a hypocrite. He represented two women to help them exercise their free speech rights: xhttp://articles.sfgate.com/20 02-01-30/news/17527653_1_caltr ans-spokesman-dennis-trujillo- freeway-signs-banners
Nathan C. Benjamin is a hypocrite: http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-01-30/news/17...

so is Mari Tustin: http://www.kionrightnow.com/Global/story.asp...
ye olde timey post

Santa Cruz, CA

#43 Dec 28, 2012
Two and a half years later, John Colby is still bitching about woe-is-me-life-isn't-fair about the same events of this post: http://www.topix.com/forum/city/santa-cruz-ca...
in these comments at the Sentinel:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci...

Same shit, different year...
John the lying crapsack

Sunnyvale, CA

#44 Dec 29, 2012
objective evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have been a resident of a property that The John Stewart Company (JSCO) manages. You hit the nail on the head. They don't want residents to be able to collect "objective evidence" to back up complaints of criminals activity in their apartment complexes. My brother recorded solid evidence of harassment — which their JSCO attorney Nathan C. Benjamin had repeatedly demanded we supply for JSCO to investigate. So we supplied the "objective evidence", but then The John Stewart Company said we couldn't record anymore. They also didn't reprimand the harassers. The audio was so damaging that it embarrassed them to the media and the government. It proved our complaints to be valid. The SCPD, the Santa Cruz City Council, and HUD officials in San Francisco and Washington DC listened to the audio recordings of this harassment.
A management company like JSCO shouldn't be able to: 1. allow criminal activity; 2. bar you from collecting objective evidence and protecting yourself; 3. violate your civil rights such to exercise free speech, the right to protection and prosecution of violations, and witness tampering and intimidation to stop people from suing them for their illegal actions.
The John Stewart Company is trying to fix the rules so they don't have to get consequences for their illegal actions. Last I knew is that ownership of human beings — i.e. slavery — is illegal in America. JSCO seems to believe that when you rent from them that you are their property too!
What a useless loon!!

Imagine having this kind of KOOK making up "rules" in the workplace?

No wonder he'll never find any kind of job
DBS

Sunnyvale, CA

#45 Nov 20, 2013
criminal harassment wrote:
<quoted text>
Harassment by the drug abusing criminals at the Mission Gardens Apartments, managed by The John Stewart Company and where Carl Reimer was brutally gunned down by gang members. Yelling profanities and threats to harm other residents in the middle of the apartment complex parking lot. These criminals threatened the person I was with. They threatened me too. One of the crazier ones, a meth tweaker who was arrested in San Jose for meth abuse, stomped down to my sister's apartment to pick a fight. Another time this same tweaker called her obscene names and yelled she was going to beat my sister. My sister has not done one thing to this tweaker. but this meth head is obsessed with her! All this and more is allowed to happen at the Mission Gardens Apartments by The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin.
Is it any surprise — knowing The John Stewart Company and their attorney Nathan C. Benjamin allowed all of this — that Carl Reimer was murdered here in cold blood?
Archives of the LOON's ravings.

And guess who won THIS argument????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gilroy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Watsonville rent Jul 22 Jaime Cruz 1
News Cops and Courts: July 9, 2015: Record amount of... Jul 15 I am sorry 1
News Report shows Latinos are underrepresented in st... Jul 15 I am sorry 1
News Editorial: No sanctuary for dangerous criminals Jul 15 wild child 2
welfare fraud Jul 14 dmr 3
noise pollution Jul 13 dennis 1
News Lack of affordable rentals in Santa Cruz County... Jul 13 The Truth Hurts 10
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Gilroy Mortgages